Is Boxing Chess? Is MMA Poker?

[Orange Lightning]

This is a psychological aspect of MA. Or maybe, a tactical one.
There is a dilemma in gaming that every game designer needs to think about. Applies to board games, video games, game shows, games of all kinds. That issue is the level of randomness the game has. The level of randomness in the game determines how much your skill and strategy can affect the outcome of the game. Usually, competitive games have as little randomness as possible. Chess is a good example. There are exceptions to this, like Poker. But even with Poker being random, skill and strategy greatly effect the outcome of who wins the most, even if the random element can ruin your game, regardless of your ability.
All games are going to have a certain amount of randomness to them. It's impossible to elimanate the fact that player 1 is going to make one move, player 2 will make another, and just by chance, one person can lose the exchange because they both chose the exact moves they did simultaneously. Just because rock beat sciccors. Not because of any fault of either person. Even when all randomness is eliminated, this situation still exists. In my opinion, this is what the cultivation of style seeks to eliminate. Creating a method that eliminates as much randomness as possible randomness and lets you take advantage of any flaws in your opponent's methodology. It lets you press on into the unknown, knowing that you are prepared for what could come.
Now think about boxing. Obviously, you can only punch in boxing. No kicking, grappling, or holding and hitting. That removes a lot of things that could potentially happen, which means it is, by nature, less random than other types of fighting.

The unknown is our greatest psychological fear. When two people are armed with nothing but their hands and feet, everyone has the same equipment, it can be scary to try to engage, knowing how many options of attack your opponent has at their disposal once within a certain range and you're going to need to rely on your reflexes and tactics to ward any possible offense AND score your own hits. So you have to weigh the odds in your favor in a specific way, knowing what the pros and cons are, to advance with confidence.
So here are the questions. Is Boxing chess and is MMA poker? Do you think one requires more or less strategy than the other? Or does one become more of a test of strength and skill? Or am I talking nonsense and neither is more random than the other? Do you think a calculated calm ruthlessness is more effective for deploying your strategy? Or does an aggressive behavior work better, allowing your reflexes and training to do the make the decisions for you?

Just for clarity, I already have my own opinions on most of this. I just want to know what you all think. In my last few posts, people got the impression that I was a beginner and wanted people to fill in a gaps in my knowledge. I am not. I am trying to get other people's opinions on various things to expand my horizons, and possibly other peoples'.

 

[tifire]

Interesting point! MMA does have a higher level of randomness than boxing, considering it allows more ways of fighting. But can't that be considered just boxing with less rules? Examples below may help explain my point:
** boxing that only allow left fist vs boxing
** boxing vs MMA


So I would say both are chess.

 

[drop bear]

Boxing has had longer to figure out what works. Which also removes the randomness a bit. In boxing it has probably been done before.

 

[geezer]

This is a psychological aspect of MA. Or maybe, a tactical one.
There is a dilemma in gaming that every game designer needs to think about. Applies to board games, video games, game shows, games of all kinds. That issue is the level of randomness the game has. The level of randomness in the game determines how much your skill and strategy can affect the outcome of the game.

Fighting will always have a high level of what you call randomness or unpredictability. As far as sport fighting, like MMA and boxing, I think it may depend on the temperament of the individual competitors. Sometimes more like chess, sometimes a roll of the dice ...and some competitors have more dice, if you get my drift.

Now some forms of competition and training seem far more chess-like to me than either boxing or MMA. For example, although I know zilch about BJJ, it seems to be very chess-like, at least when demonstrated by well matched and highly skilled practitioners. Wing Chun chi-sau is a totally different practice that can also be very chess-like.

In both cases, it's hard to fake a person who can feel your every movement and has the technical skill to respond accordingly. Unfortunately, in the un-structured and unpredictable reality of self-defense, we don't always have the opportunity to apply such technical skills. But even if you consider it no more than a chess game, it's a good game.

 

[Drose427]

Boxing has had longer to figure out what works. Which also removes the randomness a bit. In boxing it has probably been done before.

Not to mention in MMA the sheer amount of diversity and determination of the fighters makes it difficult to have a definitive line bewteen what works and wHat doesnt..

Then imo its adds more strategy than boxing as you have 3 areas to play between(striking clinching, and grappling) that you have to know when to transition in the three and how to fight each individual match differently.

I would personally call MMA chess, and Boxing Poker. As MMA has more pieces that "move differently" and have different pros/cons

 

[drop bear]

Not to mention in MMA the sheer amount of diversity and determination of the fighters makes it difficult to have a definitive line bewteen what works and wHat doesnt..

Then imo its adds more strategy than boxing as you have 3 areas to play between(striking clinching, and grappling) that you have to know when to transition in the three and how to fight each individual match differently.

I would personally call MMA chess, and Boxing Poker. As MMA has more pieces that "move differently" and have different pros/cons

You don't transition in mma. Striking,clinching,grappling is one thing.

I think the concept of poker is the concept of that face down card. Neither player knows what is going to happen there.

In a fight at least one person knows what will happen.

 

[Orange Lightning]

Not to mention in MMA the sheer amount of diversity and determination of the fighters makes it difficult to have a definitive line bewteen what works and wHat doesnt..

Then imo its adds more strategy than boxing as you have 3 areas to play between(striking clinching, and grappling) that you have to know when to transition in the three and how to fight each individual match differently.

I would personally call MMA chess, and Boxing Poker. As MMA has more pieces that "move differently" and have different pros/cons

Interesting viewpoint. Having more options means having more strategy potential, as opposed to too many options making too much randomness possible. And in Boxing, because you have less options, you need to use tactics that gamble, because you know you're opponent is looking for openings. You need to bluff, misdirect, and be generally quicker than you do in MMA, because all the focus is on the punching, so the reactions to it are quicker.
Interesting indeed. I think there is much to be learned about strategy from these sorts of discussions.

 

[Drose427]

Interesting viewpoint. Having more options means having more strategy potential, as opposed to too many options making too much randomness possible. And in Boxing, because you have less options, you need to use tactics that gamble, because you know you're opponent is looking for openings. You need to bluff, misdirect, and be generally quicker than you do in MMA, because all the focus is on the punching, so the reactions to it are quicker.
Interesting indeed. I think there is much to be learned about strategy from these sorts of discussions.

Rigjt.

Theres a lot of pros/cons thinking in MMA, like chess.

Fighter A is the 3rd best grappler in the UFC, So in their match, fighter B has to keep it standing to have a chance.

Fighter B would still then have to weigh out trying to "stick and move" while striking, or get inside closer than he may need and risk getting caught in a clinch that may give fighter A the upper hand.

I personally just feel that type of thinking is more akin to Chess than Poker

 

[Orange Lightning]

You don't transition in mma. Striking,clinching,grappling is one thing.

I think the concept of poker is the concept of that face down card. Neither player knows what is going to happen there.

In a fight at least one person knows what will happen.

What do you mean you don't transition? Standing toe to toe seems a very different dynamic to me than the clinch or grapple. One person engages or disengages from on of those modes, and now the dynamic is totally different.
I think I'm not interpreting that very well. Could you elaborate?

The face down card exists in all competition. Except like, golf n stuff. You're saying that, when both players play their hand, the result is the face down card? I don't think I'm following your metaphor either.

 

[drop bear]

What do you mean you don't transition? Standing toe to toe seems a very different dynamic to me than the clinch or grapple. One person engages or disengages from on of those modes, and now the dynamic is totally different.
I think I'm not interpreting that very well. Could you elaborate?

The face down card exists in all competition. Except like, golf n stuff. You're saying that, when both players play their hand, the result is the face down card? I don't think I'm following your metaphor either.

Ok if I am on the ground punching the guy because he is defending my arm bar. Am I striking or grappling?

The face down card in poker is a legitimate random event not caused by either player.

 

[Orange Lightning]

Rigjt.

Theres a lot of pros/cons thinking in MMA, like chess.

Fighter A is the 3rd best grappler in the UFC, So in their match, fighter B has to keep it standing to have a chance.

Fighter B would still then have to weigh out trying to "stick and move" while striking, or get inside closer than he may need and risk getting caught in a clinch that may give fighter A the upper hand.

I personally just feel that type of thinking is more akin to Chess than Poker

But you know that, in Boxing, everyone has the same tools, like Chess. In Chess, one player doesn't get some knights, 3 pawns and a bunch of rooks. Everyone gets the same thing. In a card game, everyone gets dealt a different hand. You can know all the cards in the deck, and gain some knowledge about what the cards in the other player's hands might be, but not when they'll use them, and you don't know for sure. That's more MMA to me.
There is much thinking in any competition. I do a lot of thinking playing Rummy, but I also think a lot playing Chess. Both can be played over a conversation.

 

[Drose427]

Ok if I am on the ground punching the guy because he is defending my arm bar. Am I striking or grappling?

The face down card in poker is a legitimate random event not caused by either player.

Well you just said ypu were punching....

When you go for a transition to a better position of an armbar youd be grappling again.

The position doesnt matter, its what the fighter is doing at that moment.

Punching\kicking\knees\elbows = striking

Submissions\transitions\takedowns (usually, sweeps tend to be either)\clinch = grappling.

In MMA they blend together, but theyre still dynamically different.

 

[Orange Lightning]

Ok if I am on the ground punching the guy because he is defending my arm bar. Am I striking or grappling?

The face down card in poker is a legitimate random event not caused by either player.

This post cracked me up for some reason. xD

About your point -Ok, but the give and take of how being on the ground with your opponent is totally different from the give and take standing up next to them right?

 

[drop bear]

This post cracked me up for some reason. xD

About your point -Ok, but the give and take of how being on the ground with your opponent is totally different from the give and take standing up next to them right?

You are trying to use it all at once. You don't go from standup mode to ground mode.

 

[Orange Lightning]

Fighting will always have a high level of what you call randomness or unpredictability. As far as sport fighting, like MMA and boxing, I think it may depend on the temperament of the individual competitors. Sometimes more like chess, sometimes a roll of the dice ...and some competitors have more dice, if you get my drift.

Now some forms of competition and training seem far more chess-like to me than either boxing or MMA. For example, although I know zilch about BJJ, it seems to be very chess-like, at least when demonstrated by well matched and highly skilled practitioners. Wing Chun chi-sau is a totally different practice that can also be very chess-like.

In both cases, it's hard to fake a person who can feel your every movement and has the technical skill to respond accordingly. Unfortunately, in the un-structured and unpredictable reality of self-defense, we don't always have the opportunity to apply such technical skills. But even if you consider it no more than a chess game, it's a good game.

I do indeed get your drift.
Agreed too. We are 100% on the same page.

 

[Orange Lightning]

You are trying to use it all at once. You don't go from standup mode to ground mode.

Ok, I think you're trying to say you're trying to watch for any opportunity to use any of your abilities, and that you can grapple and strike, clinch and strike, as well as just strike. Which I can understand.
But what you're literally saying doesn't make any sense to me. You do, quite literally, switch from standing to grappling, etc. They are totally different things. What can happen and how the strategy works isn't the same at all for any of them. They integrate into each other, but at any one moment, you are definitely just clinching, grappling, or standing. You can't do them all at once.

 

[drop bear]

Ok, I think you're trying to say you're trying to watch for any opportunity to use any of your abilities, and that you can grapple and strike, clinch and strike, as well as just strike. Which I can understand.
But what you're literally saying doesn't make any sense to me. You do, quite literally, switch from standing to grappling, etc. They are totally different things. What can happen and how the strategy works isn't the same at all for any of them. They integrate into each other, but at any one moment, you are definitely just clinching, grappling, or standing. You can't do them all at once.

Like blocking mode and punching mode?

 

[Drose427]

You are trying to use it all at once. You don't go from standup mode to ground mode.

Not really, fighters are always consciously tRying to decide if they should keep match standing or take it to the ground, depending entirely on the strengths and weaknesses of them and their opponent.

They arent doing them "all at the same time", theyre transitioning between them to form an effetcive combination.

You cant while running an armbar.

But you can strike prior to getting it to help get the armbar

Like blocking mode and punching mode?

No because thats just striking..
.

 

[drop bear]

Not really, fighters are always consciously tRying to decide if they should keep match standing or take it to the ground, depending entirely on the strengths and weaknesses of them and their opponent.

They arent doing them "all at the same time", theyre transitioning between them to form an effetcive combination.

You cant while running an armbar.

But you can strike prior to getting it to help get the armbar



No because thats just striking..
.

I started a thread.

 

[Buka]

MMA is chess, boxing is checkers at best. Compared to MMA, boxing is closer to throwing cards in a hat.